No way you can say this with absolute authority. One kid started it, one kid simply avoided getting hurt. The officials reviewed game video immediately following the game and confirmed their decision on the court.

 

No one is pointing fingers. This was an intense game that almost got out of hand in one brief moment. It was handled immediately, authoritatively, and upon review... appropriately.

 

Please don't try to stir something up that did not occur. :thumb:

 

What did I say that did not occur???

Spoke to B. Hall and A. Russell after game and what the video didn't pick up or what they did or did not see is a moot point. a)the can only make a call based on the information available to them at the time b) my vision is good- as well as several others- and if the LC player warranted the heave-ho then so did the RH player for his actions prior to the altercation. I know that several things led up to this "coming to a head" but the fact is that #1 should have got the gate too. You are correct that he did not retaliate after the attempted "BULLDOG" by the LC player.

What did I say that did not occur???

 

The referees reviewed the video tape of the "incident" and concluded quite the opposite of what you have concluded. They reaffirmed the appropriateness of their earlier actions. Sorry to disappoint you but, please remember, a picture is worth a thousand words. It appears that you prefer to forget what is actually and without the possibility of bias recorded on tape and, instead, go by the interpretation crreated by you.

What did I say that did not occur???

The way I read your post, it appeared to me that you were suggesting that both the LC and RH players involved in the scuffle should have been shown the door. The LC player fouled the RH player and then tackled the RH player to the floor. The only thing the RH kid did was hang on to the LC kid to break his fall.

 

One kid got too frustrated and took it out the wrong way. He was given time to cool off. I/we sincerely wish him and his team the best the rest of this season, but he earned himself a timeout.

 

You do not have much support for your opinion, including the three officials who were all watching the event up close on the floor as it occurred, and doublechecked their decision with the game video following the game.

The referees reviewed the video tape of the "incident" and concluded quite the opposite of what you have concluded. They reaffirmed the appropriateness of their earlier actions. Sorry to disappoint you but, please remember, a picture is worth a thousand words.

 

Scooter B, then sorry the video did not catch it!! This is just my opinion regardless, but a certain portion of the crowd saw what they saw!!:thumb:

There were three very good and fair referees working this game. I am sure they had as good a view if not better view than you from the stands. And as Fastbreak said their call was confirmed by video. Maybe your view was couded.

It really does not matter, the game is over and RH looked very formidable!! The avid RH supporters will have their slanted view of the incident and believe what they want-which is how it should be-support your own.

 

Why would officials ever come up with a decision contrary to their original solution??? They immediately lose credibility.

Scooter B, then sorry the video did not catch it!! This is just my opinion regardless, but a certain portion of the crowd saw what they saw!!:thumb:

 

Maybe next time the video should be discarded and you should be hired to "interpret" the game for everyone. Of course "portions of the crowd saw what they saw". Do I need to guess which portion you have in mind? But, then, that is why video is used.

The avid RH supporters will have their slanted view of the incident and believe what they want-which is how it should be-support your own.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but to suggest that it is the RH supporters who have a "slanted view" that just so happens to agree with three of the better refs in the 16th Region who made the call at the time, and were professional enough to ask to review the game film just to be certain they didn't miss something is genuinely funny to me. :lol:

 

You can argue this one into the ground, but you are in the minority with your opinion Sir. :thumb:

 

This was a very physical game, with a lot of pushing and pounding. Whatever you suggest happened prior to the incident away from the ball may have been a foul at worst, but was not something that could have ended a player's season or career. Losing a temper and tackling another player to the floor after a foul has been called could have ended a player's season or worse. He left the refs no choice.

Don't know what happened last night because I was not there, but Lawrence County seems to have these incidents from time to time. It appears their coach must teach a very physical style of play.

Maybe next time the video should be discarded and you should be hired to "interpret" the game for everyone. Of course "portions of the crowd saw what they saw". Do I need to guess which portion you have in mind? But, then, that is why video is used.

 

 

Ask the RH party involved and I believe he will tell you what I'm talking about. I heard from a very good source that his actions were were warranted and understandable but his retaliation was very real and visible to the "minority" that Fastbreak is talking about.:argue:

 

Its agree to disagree I guess!!! I will quite posting on this matter, good luck to the Royals tonight!!!

 

 

What is the pay involved in this "interpreter" position?

 

BTW- glad to see the RH BGPreppers Club re-emerging back to OJ/Walker/Dawson day levels!!!

It really does not matter, the game is over and RH looked very formidable!! The avid RH supporters will have their slanted view of the incident and believe what they want-which is how it should be-support your own.

 

Why would officials ever come up with a decision contrary to their original solution??? They immediately lose credibility.

Supporting your own and denying what is clearly on a film are two diferent things.

I agree that in a game fans will sometimes see what they want to see however the film of the game doesnt lie -- no matter the opinions .

Unfortunately, rams78, the job of interpreter doesn't pay much. As for "reemerging", I don't think that is the case. We have always been around and our loyalties have remained in tact. However, I will agree that we probably appear more vocal. Of course, that is because, as the team succeeds, the dissenters from the past "reemerge" and must be rebutted.

 

Don't get me wrong. I much prefer being disliked to being ignored.

Please note, that in High School Sports, video can not be used to change a call or confirm a call.

 

However, good officials will review video of games they work to try and improve at what they do.

 

No matter what the video shows after a High School Game, no call can be changed.

I have been reading this board since 2001-2002 and it's amazing that even back in the Mayo days, no Rose Hill thread could properly end without some kind of disagreement/argument.

 

Here we are a few years later and it's the same thing all over again. lol

 

Lawrence Co has always been physical, but that's how I have always seen the 16th region. Not dirty, just very physical, half court basketball.

 

I hope the mods are ready cause Ashland/Rose Hill week is likely to spur on quite a few "discussions" : )